BACKGROUND Billions of dollars are lost annually in health research that fails to create meaningful benefits for patients. Engaging in research co-design - the meaningful involvement of end-users in research - may help address this research waste. This rapid overview of reviews addressed three related questions, namely (1) what approaches to research co-design exist in health settings? (2) What activities do these research co-design approaches involve? (3) What do we know about the effectiveness of existing research co-design approaches? The review focused on the study planning phase of research, defined as the point up to which the research question and study design are finalised. METHODS Reviews of research co-design were systematically identified using a rapid overview of reviews approach (PROSPERO: CRD42019123034). The search strategy encompassed three academic databases, three grey literature databases, and a hand-search of the journal Research Involvement and Engagement. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening and data extraction and resolved disagreements through discussion. Disputes were resolved through discussion with a senior author (PB). One reviewer performed quality assessment. The results were narratively synthesised. RESULTS A total of 26 records (reporting on 23 reviews) met the inclusion criteria. Reviews varied widely in their application of 'research co-design' and their application contexts, scope and theoretical foci. The research co-design approaches identified involved interactions with end-users outside of study planning, such as recruitment and dissemination. Activities involved in research co-design included focus groups, interviews and surveys. The effectiveness of research co-design has rarely been evaluated empirically or experimentally; however, qualitative exploration has described the positive and negative outcomes associated with co-design. The research provided many recommendations for conducting research co-design, including training participating end-users in research skills, having regular communication between researchers and end-users, setting clear end-user expectations, and assigning set roles to all parties involved in co-design. CONCLUSIONS Research co-design appears to be widely used but seldom described or evaluated in detail. Though it has rarely been tested empirically or experimentally, existing research suggests that it can benefit researchers, practitioners, research processes and research outcomes. Realising the potential of research co-design may require the development of clearer and more consistent terminology, better reporting of the activities involved and better evaluation.

中文翻译：

---

卫生领域的研究共同设计：综述的快速概述。

背景技术每年在健康研究中损失数十亿美元，这未能给患者带来有意义的益处。参与研究协同设计-最终用户有意义地参与研究-可能有助于解决这项研究浪费。本文对审查的快速概述解决了三个相关问题，即（1）在卫生机构中存在哪些研究协同设计方法？（2）这些研究协同设计方法涉及哪些活动？（3）我们对现有研究协同设计方法的有效性了解多少？审查的重点是研究的研究计划阶段，定义为研究问题和研究设计最终确定的要点。方法使用回顾方法的快速概述（PROSPERO：CRD42019123034）系统地确定研究共同设计的评论。搜索策略包括三个学术数据库，三个灰色文献数据库以及对“研究参与与参与”期刊的手工搜索。两位审稿人独立进行筛选和数据提取，并通过讨论解决了分歧。通过与资深作者（PB）的讨论解决了争议。一位审稿人进行了质量评估。结果是叙述性的综合。结果共有26条记录（报告23条评论）符合纳入标准。评论在“研究协同设计”的应用及其应用环境，范围和理论重点方面差异很大。研究协同设计方法确定了与研究计划之外的最终用户的交互作用，例如招募和传播。参与研究协同设计的活动包括焦点小组，访谈和调查。很少通过经验或实验评估研究协同设计的有效性。然而，定性探索描述了与协同设计相关的正面和负面结果。该研究为开展研究协同设计提供了许多建议，包括培训参与的最终用户研究技能，在研究人员和最终用户之间进行定期交流，设定明确的最终用户期望以及为参与合作的所有各方分配既定角色设计。结论研究协同设计似乎已被广泛使用，但很少描述或评估。尽管很少进行经验或实验测试，但现有研究表明，它可以使研究人员，从业人员，研究过程和研究成果。要实现研究协同设计的潜力，可能需要开发更清晰，更一致的术语，更好地报告所涉及的活动并进行更好的评估。